970 3.5GB 'Ramgate' - NVIDIA ordered to pay $30 to each owner

RavenXXX2 · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:50

4GB on board 500mb of which is about as much use as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. So yes they had a very good reason to lie.

Relentless81 · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:52

KillBoY_UK said:
The performance never suddenly changed though. its not like the review cards and release cards where different. Sure it sucks a little but your card was the same it ever was.

Its about as evil as the Rage Pro Turbo of the 90's.

If you like being lied to then thats fine mate, personally I'm not a fan

james.miller · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:53

james.miller said:
We are a couple of years down the line now. Is it making a difference?

mw8t said:
You tell me, I don't own one. But first consider whether video games VRAM requirements are going up or down?

Already have

james.miller said:
for the rest of us, and I genuinely mean this, it has not affected us yet.

And for the record, ive been saying the cards will run out of grunt before they run out of ram since day dot. And where are we now? I cant run games at 60fps without turning detail down. I have most of the fancy stuff turned off, for example, in The Division and i still cant maintain 60fps. Not enough grunt, not a ram issue (2560x1080). RAM is/was an issue for SLi users but then as i have said all along they we're more than entitled to return the cards fora refund.

relentless86 said:
I sent mine back got a refund and will think twice about ever buying their products again so yeah I would say so [That it's made a difference].

I meant a difference to performance.

mw8t said:
Why would anyone even attempt to try and defend a company who pulled something like this? There are a lot of weird people out there

// blank record mode //

Nobody is defending nVidia
Nobody is defending nVidia
Nobody is defending nVidia
Nobody is defending nVidia
Nobody is defending nVidia
Nobody is defending nVidia

// blank record mode //

-----------------

Bru, agree with that. 100%.

Seanspeed · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:57

Relentless81 said:
If you like being lied to then thats fine mate, personally I'm not a fan

I get that.

But if I were hardline principled like that, I'd basically never be able to buy anything.

RavenXXX2 · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:58

If the 970 actually had full speed 4GB of vram then some games that require more ram might not run like ****, the consequences of only having 3.5GB will become more apparent as ram requirements rise.

https://youtu.be/Bm5ZCJah-FY?t=44

Seanspeed · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:59

RavenXXX2 said:
If the 970 actually had full speed 4GB of vram some games that require more ram might not run like ****, the consequences of only having 3.5GB will become more apparent as ram requirements rise.

vRAM requirements will go up, but adding an additional 0.5GB will hardly make any difference in the vast majority of cases.

The 970 is also 2 years old at this point.

RavenXXX2 · 29 Jul 2016 at 14:59

Seanspeed said:
vRAM requirements will go up, but adding an additional 0.5GB will hardly make any difference in the vast majority of cases.

500mb is still 500mb.

james.miller · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:02

RavenXXX2 said:
If the 970 actually had full speed 4GB of vram then some games that require more ram might not run like ****, the consequences of only having 3.5GB will become more apparent as ram requirements rise.

https://youtu.be/Bm5ZCJah-FY?t=44

No chance when the Fury X cant run hyper either
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-ben...st-graphics-card-benchmark-gtx-1080-1070-390x

The Fury X and GTX 970 refused to run with any stability – we think that's a VRAM limitation – and so the chart only shows the 390X, 1080, 980 Ti, and 1070. All of these cards have 8GB of VRAM, except the 980 Ti and its 6GB.

so hey, than means the 4gb 390 and 290x/290 wouldn't be stable either.

Seanspeed · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:07

RavenXXX2 said:
500mb is still 500mb.

And it's not going to make much difference if the argument is that vRAM requirements are going to keep increasing. If you're bottlenecked with 3.5GB, you're very likely going to be bottlenecked with 4GB, too. You're basically talking about cases where a game would have to use very specifically somewhere in between 3.5 and 4GB. Not that this wont ever occur, it's just not going to be common at all.

Honestly, it's a poor argument trying to make this a big deal in terms of the performance implications. You're merely trying to rub salt into whatever wound you can find here.

Relentless81 · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:12

james.miller said:
I meant a difference to performance.

It doesn't matter if it makes a difference to performance or not (In this case it did)

What matters is they lied and a consumer attempting to defend that is simply beyond understanding, it is sending the message that it is OK to lie, we will still buy your products. Not me, I dont appreciate being lied to and for those that do because of brand loyalty? Crazy stuff.

r7slayer · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:14

Relentless81 said:
It doesn't matter if it makes a difference to performance or not (In this case it did)

What matters is they lied and a consumer attempting to defend that is simply beyond understanding, it is sending the message that it is OK to lie, we will still buy your products. Not me, I dont appreciate being lied to and for those that do because of brand loyalty? Crazy stuff.

Yep! Atleast some one gets it.

james.miller · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:17

Relentless81 said:
It doesn't matter if it makes a difference to performance or not (In this case it did)

what

How has it made a difference to your card *today* if you sent it back months ago?. Again, what? :confused:

mw8t said:
No difference at time of launch maybe but what about a couple of years down the line. Don't be so short-sighted.

He made that statement, i simply noted we are already a couple of years down the line and asked him if performance had changed (i know it hasnt).

So now it doesnt matter now? why doesnt it matter?

what matters is they lied and a consumer attempting to defe...[SNIP]

SNORR > been over this again and again.

r7slayer said:
Yep! Atleast some one gets it.

Oh, you again.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times you lot are told that nobody has defended nVidia over this, you ignore it. Why? Why are you ignoring this somewhat crucial rebuttal to the 'why are people defending nVidia' arguement?'

Oh wait, i've just answered my own question.

Relentless81 · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:23

Lol you can't argue with someone who has such strong faith in a company, neither do I have any interest to. End of the day they lost a court battle and are paying compensation so it's not difficult to work out is it.

james.miller · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:25

Relentless81 said:
Lol you can't argue with someone who has such strong faith in a company, neither do I have any interest too. End of the day they lost a court battle and are paying compensation so it's not difficult to work out is it.

are you actually daft? How am i defending the company? no, PLEASE, explain. Explain when i've said over over again that they deserve to be pulled up.

Go on.

:rolleyes:

Relentless81 · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:27

You're very angry about all this, why are you so defensive because people don't agree with you?

They lied, it's proven, get over it and move on.

~>Dg<~ · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:27

whyscotty said:
But did you send it back because you experienced issues with it?

the funny thing is a 970 gtx at 1080 will play everything fine even the new bf1. so its still fine.2 years after people said it was a issue.

its nice that a refund is coming who would do the refund ?would it be ocuk if it was brought from here ?

james.miller · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:29

Relentless81 said:
You're very angry about all this, why are you so defensive because people don't agree with you?

They lied, it's proven, get over it and move on.

Or, you could just answer the question?

I have nothing to get over, i don't have an issue with them being punished.

james.miller said:
How am i defending the company? no, PLEASE, explain. Explain when i've said over over again that they deserve to be pulled up.

Go on.

Answer please, or i'll take your refusal as confirmation that you're talking bull.

~>Dg<~ said:
the funny thing is a 970 gtx at 1080 will play everything fine even the new bf1. so its still fine.2 years after people said it was a issue.

its nice that a refund is coming who would do the refund ?would it be ocuk if it was brought from here ?

Likely. Unlikely that it'll happen over here though, like somebody else mentioned earlier the whole bumpgate thing was US only. Who knows though.

Relentless81 · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:32

What question? Why I sent it back? I've already answered it. It's basic stuff, they lied. OCUK offered a refund when they found out nvidia lied, so I took the refund.

Seanspeed · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:34

Relentless81 said:
It doesn't matter if it makes a difference to performance or not (In this case it did)

What matters is they lied and a consumer attempting to defend that is simply beyond understanding, it is sending the message that it is OK to lie, we will still buy your products. Not me, I dont appreciate being lied to and for those that do because of brand loyalty? Crazy stuff.

Obviously nobody appreciates being lied to. No need to make ridiculous claims like that. Nor should you go assuming that anybody who isn't upset over it is only calm about it due to brand loyalty. Some people simply were still entirely happy with the product they bought and so didn't feel the need to get red-faced over it.

I think james should probably relax on trying to convince somebody else their reaction was invalid or irrational, because you are fully entitled to make your own judgement on how upset to get about it, but you are also trying to paint anybody who feels different than you as irrational if you haven't noticed.

~>Dg<~ · 29 Jul 2016 at 15:37

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...graphics-card-false-advertising-class-action/

but yes its only in the USA. haha what a joke lol.